2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

가. 피고는 2012. 6. 20. 서울 동작구 흑석동 SK네트웍스 주유소(이하 이 사건 주유소라 한다)에서 바닥 방수공사를 시행하였는데, 당시 피고가 사용하였던 우레탄 방수제가 날려 담장 너머에 주차되어 있던 원고 소유의 B BMW 535D 차량(이하 이 사건 차량이라 한다)에 들러붙게 되었다

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). B.

The Plaintiff colored the entire instant vehicle in black, and claimed the payment of the said repair cost to the Plaintiff, the insurer of the instant vehicle, and the said Company paid the Plaintiff KRW 25,210,000 in total with the repair cost of the vehicle.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Even after the repair due to the instant accident alleged by the Plaintiff, the value of the instant vehicle was reduced to KRW 3,781,500, and the repair period was 25 days, and the Defendant is obliged to pay damages of KRW 9,081,50,00, the total amount of damages to the Plaintiff, which is KRW 300,000, the transportation cost equivalent to 30% of the rental cost for the repair period, KRW 200,000, the insurance handling cost, KRW 500,000, KRW 600, KRW 1,000, and KRW 1,000,000, KRW 500.

3. Determination

A. We examine the assertion that preferential exchange value has decreased.

The amount of damages when the property owned is damaged due to a tort shall be the cost of repair if it is possible to repair it, and if it is impossible to repair it, the reduced value of exchange shall be the normal amount of damages.

Even after repair remains, the reduced value of exchange due to the impossibility of repair, in addition to the repair cost, shall also constitute ordinary damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da28719, Feb. 11, 1992; 2001Da52889, Nov. 13, 2001); however, where repair is possible, a considerable exchange value, in addition to the repair cost, shall be always equivalent to the repair cost.